Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
No, You Shut Down The Goverment.  
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8003 times:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/19/no-shut-down-government/



Who will hold the bag for shutting down the government with the American People? I feel the Republicans will, and I think the polls show it right now. A Pyrrhic Victory maybe for the Republicans?


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
308 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5418 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7943 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
Who will hold the bag for shutting down the government with the American People? I feel the Republicans will, and I think the polls show it right now. A Pyrrhic Victory maybe for the Republicans?

Hey man, no compromise!

That's how you get things done!

Remember the Alamo, Pearl Harbor, 9-11, Obamacare, whatever.... never retreat!

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5344 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7924 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 1):
Hey man, no compromise!

Yup, that's what President Obama said.

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
I feel the Republicans will

Of course they will. The media will make sure they do.

Let's look at this, because, we have forgotten the process:

House passes a bill. In this case, CR that funds government without funding Obamacare.

The Senate passes a bill. Their version of a CR that funds the government including Obamacare.

What is supposed to happen next:

a)The President runs to the camera (with his teleprompter) and whines about the Republicans being inflexible

b)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-AZ) runs to the media and cries about the Republicans being inflexible

c)Speaker of the House Boehner (R-OH) runs to the media and says his work is done and he is waiting on The Senate

d)Both bills go to a conference committee where differences are worked out. The new bill is kicked back for consideration and then on to the presidential pen for a yea or a nay or it dies.

What happens if the actual constitutional process is followed and bill sits on the President's desk that de-funds Obamacare, yet funds the government...or God forbid, actually yields a budget? Who is to blame then?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5418 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7904 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 2):
Yup, that's what President Obama said.

Actually, no. He has tried many times, but the entire focus is solely on attempt to get rid of the ACA. At what point does it stop? You can claim it because it has been pushed to this point over time but the compromises up to this point have been many.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5344 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7862 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
Actually, no

"What I haven’t been willing to negotiate, and I will not negotiate, is on the debt ceiling."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...erview-with-george-stephanopoulos/

Well, I guess you're right...he didn't use the word compromise.. But, he's unwilling to negotiate. He wants a blank check...again.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13509 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7861 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 2):Yup, that's what President Obama said.
Actually, no

Actually, yes.

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
but the entire focus is solely on attempt to get rid of the ACA. At what point does it stop?

When it's gone, or de-funded.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8787 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7856 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
Actually, no. He has tried many times

And every time he has "tried", it was basically on the condition that the GOP gives him everything he wants. I have no interest in a president who says he is willing to compromise to the teleprompter, but stonewalls when it's time to sit down and hammer out an agreement

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
but the entire focus is solely on attempt to get rid of the ACA.

Face it, the American people don't want Obamacare. In spite of hundreds of millions of (borderline-illegal) dollars that have been spent trying to hype it up, close to 60% of the population want Obamacare repealed completely or at least partially (even I'll admit there are a few good paragraphs in there). It's time to give it up.

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
You can claim it because it has been pushed to this point over time but the compromises up to this point have been many.

The only compromises involved with Obamacare was between the radical left-wing and the more moderate democrats. Obamacare was passed without a single GOP vote.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5418 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 7810 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
The only compromises involved with Obamacare was between the radical left-wing and the more moderate democrats. Obamacare was passed without a single GOP vote.

Correct and that is entirely on the GOP's head because no Republican could or would support or even work to negotiate on it. Anyone that did (and a brave few did try) were castigated and demonized by the conservative talk show hosts and others in their party. It was truly sad and drove the whole process to the left and it should not have been needed. The Republican and their media supporters caused the left movement.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6527 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7799 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 2):
What happens if the actual constitutional process is followed and bill sits on the President's desk that de-funds Obamacare, yet funds the government...or God forbid, actually yields a budget? Who is to blame then?

It's still on the Republicans, or alternatively on the constitution they so love that allows a president from one party and a house from another party to be elected at the same time.

Obama was elected with Obamacare as a cornerstone of his platform, he passed it, and was reelected after that. Trying to get rid of it is not what the people want, obviously.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5344 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7774 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 8):
It's still on the Republicans, or alternatively on the constitution they so love that allows a president from one party and a house from another party to be elected at the same time.

And, I would have expected no answer other than that from the left...even if a bipartisan bill was put in front of him. Even though, now that we've read it and passed it, the majority of Americans hate it.

The man is a petulant child.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineKBJCpilot From United States of America, joined May 2012, 160 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7754 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 8):
Obama was elected with Obamacare as a cornerstone of his platform, he passed it, and was reelected after that. Trying to get rid of it is not what the people want, obviously.

Obama was elected because the opposing party's candidate ran a terrible campaign. He pandered to the right-wingers while abandoning his own moderate leanings. The 47% video didn't help either.



Samsonite, I was way off!
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7700 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 1):
Hey man, no compromise!


Absolutely, we will not compromise.



That's how you get things done!


Absolutely, we will get it done, help for the common man.




Remember the Alamo, Pearl Harbor, 9-11, Obamacare, whatever.... never retreat!

Absolutely, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Guadalcanal, Okinawa. Do we need to send in the Marines? Army and Navy?




You may have noticed, I never do on what is good for the people. Never surrender, take no prisoners. Oh my god, I sound like the Tea Party, shoot me, shoot me.   

[Edited 2013-09-19 17:04:30]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7192 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7695 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 2):
Yup, that's what President Obama said.

THIS:

Obama is the one who wont budge. The Reps have always thrown around different ideas which Obama will not agree to.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7685 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 2):
House passes a bill. In this case, CR that funds government without funding Obamacare.

The Senate passes a bill. Their version of a CR that funds the government including Obamacare.

Yes, that is exactly what will happen.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 2):
b)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-AZ) runs to the media and cries about the Republicans being inflexible

c)Speaker of the House Boehner (R-OH) runs to the media and says his work is done and he is waiting on The Senate

You are correct so far.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 2):
What happens if the actual constitutional process is followed and bill sits on the President's desk that de-funds Obamacare, yet funds the government...or God forbid, actually yields a budget? Who is to blame then?

It will not happen, nor should it. Blame the Republicans, the party of NO.

[Edited 2013-09-19 17:19:59]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5344 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7672 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 13):
You are correct so far

So, what you're telling me is that you'd be happy if Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-AZ) ignores the constitutional process and just sits on his hands.

Who is saying no then?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19381 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7666 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 12):
Obama is the one who wont budge.

When you try to "negotiate" by asking someone for something that you know they will not accept, whose fault is it?

The individual mandate is already going into effect. The exchanges are running. Healthcare providers and insurance companies have already started to implement new policies and procedures and even systems. It would be HORRIBLY damaging to the industry to delay it a year. It would cost an enormous amount in resources that would best be used on patient care to suddenly not just stop, but actually reverse course.

They are asking for something unrealistic and unacceptable and even the top GOP leaders have said so. And Mr. Cruz even said so today. When you ask for something unrealistic and unacceptable, it is not your opponent who is at fault.

I will point out one other thing: Mr. Obama has vowed not to negotiate, but he doesn't have to. It is clear that the Senate Democrats will not negotiate on this, either, because they know it's absurd. As one GOP aide said, the GOP can only defund ObamaCare if it passes in the Senate. If there is no plan to get it the defund passed in the Senate, and there isn't, then all the GOP has is a plan to shut down the government.

So it is not Mr. Obama who is being intransigent at all. It is the GOP who have informed the DNC that unless their demands are met, they will shut down the government. And they themselves have said so...explicitly.

So go ahead and defend them, because they agree with me.

[Edited 2013-09-19 17:45:44]

User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7658 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
When you try to "negotiate" by asking someone for something that you know they will not accept, whose fault is it?

The individual mandate is already going into effect. The exchanges are running. Healthcare providers and insurance companies have already started to implement new policies and procedures and even systems. It would be HORRIBLY damaging to the industry to delay it a year. It would cost an enormous amount in resources that would best be used on patient care to suddenly not just stop, but actually reverse course.

They are asking for something unrealistic and unacceptable and even the top GOP leaders have said so. When you ask for something unrealistic and unacceptable, it is not your opponent who is at fault.

I accept your Expert Opinion on this matter, who should know better? Not I. I agree 100%



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5344 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7648 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
It is clear that the Senate Democrats will not negotiate on this, either, because they know it's absurd.

Then, when, and if the House, passes a CR defunding Obamacare, let's see if Senator Reid and gang pass their own CR and let it go to conference.

Let's see what the conference committee kicks out. My guess is that Senator Reid won't let it get that far because it will force vulnerable Democratic Senators to reaffirm their vote for legislation that a growing number of Americans hate.

But, it's a lose/lose for the Republicans, because the lap-dog media will provide cover for the Obama/Reid cabal.

So many people have already been booted off their insurance...with so many more to come. What was it that President Obama said back when he was pushing this monstrosity?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2985 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7633 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 17):
because the lap-dog media will provide cover for the Obama/Reid cabal.

No. It will be a lose/lose for Republicans because they have made it so. If Americans truly wanted the ACA gone they would have voted in more Republicans to Congress and even elect Mitt Romney. The fact that they don't like it doesn't mean they don't want it. As a kid, when you had to take medicine for the cold, did you like the flavors? No, but it doesn't mean you don't want to feel better.

If Boehner himself has accepted the ACA as the law of the land back when it was upheld, then why is he continues to allow votes to repeal it? And I'm willing to bet that if the situation were the inverse, with Democrats threatening to shut down the government due to defense/war spending, the GOP would be up in arms calling them un-patriots.

But interesting to note how a law that's actually working should be repealed period.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13032 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7629 times:

Right now it is more like the WWE in the US Congress, phony fights for show to their bases to entertain us.
We have very deep issues and conflicts dividing citizens like the Grand Canyon.
We could have the USA government go into default on it's debt, which could trigger another Great Depression.
No one is really thinking about real cuts in the military, for wars or on tax deals for the rich and big corporations.
The Republicans are forgetting that voters like lower taxes but they hate cuts in government spending even more, especially as many more need government assistance (like with the cut SNAP programs). Remember what happened to the Republicans in the mid-1990's.
We have a health care system that is failing to help many millions and costs too much, the ACA was a giveaway to the insurance industry instead of really helping citizens.
I don't have any real answers, nor does the President and certainly all other politicians. I do expect some deal will be made to put off the needs for big changes, probably some delay in the individual mandates for Obamacare, keeps the military and Homeland (in)Security at full funding.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7626 times:

http://cbo.gov/publication/43090


Here is the link to the real CBO report on the ACA, not the scare tactics from the reports on Fox News. Try reading it, the real source of the information.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7618 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 18):
But interesting to note how a law that's actually working should be repealed period.

And there in lies a story, the Republicans fear that most of all, that the ACA will work, and the credit once again for human based government will go to the Democrats. Horror of Horrors.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6527 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7542 times:

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 10):
Obama was elected because the opposing party's candidate ran a terrible campaign. He pandered to the right-wingers while abandoning his own moderate leanings. The 47% video didn't help either.

Same difference. People already don't expect much from politicians, for once one has done what he promised, why do some people expect him to go back and undo it ? I mean, I'm sure some conservative voters do think it's possible, but I'm pretty sure there aren't many GOP elected officials that believe that, they're just going along because they think it's what's needed to be reelected.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7532 times:

The right (read: the loud mouths that control the talking points) does not want compromise. Remember? Compromise? When Reagan and O'Neill compromised? Back when everyone met in the middle? That can not happen these days. That is a sign of weakness. That is a "liberal" thing to do. Only "liberals" compromise.

What I hope happens is: the far-right gets the government shut down and gets the blame for it. And, in 2014, pays the price! I want to see a center and center-left Congress elected in 2014 so we can get something done! I am sick and tired of McConnell and Boehner being the de-facto presidents of the United States.

"Obama never gets a budget in Congress!" says the far-right. Actually, he does. But, it never gets out of committee. Read the Constitution and fact check before you start in on the smear campaign.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13509 posts, RR: 62
Reply 24, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7528 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
When you try to "negotiate" by asking someone for something that you know they will not accept, whose fault is it?

The very idea of negotiating is to start with your pie-in-the-sky wishes in hopes the other side will be willing to meet you somewhere less than that.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
Mr. Obama has vowed not to negotiate, but he doesn't have to.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
It is clear that the Senate Democrats will not negotiate on this, either

With these two statements you've proven that it's the President's fault (and his fellow Democrats) since they're drawing a line in the sand on this. (They won't say "red line" since we all know those don't mean much to this Administration anyway)



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 25, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7664 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 24):
With these two statements you've proven that it's the President's fault (and his fellow Democrats) since they're drawing a line in the sand on this. (They won't say "red line" since we all know those don't mean much to this Administration anyway)

We all know Boehner is so easy to compromise with /rolls eyes

Remember his comment about "We got 99% of what we wanted" then was pissed off he didn't get 100% of what he wanted?

I would place blame 50% on Obama and 50% on Boehner.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19381 posts, RR: 58
Reply 26, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7685 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 24):
The very idea of negotiating is to start with your pie-in-the-sky wishes in hopes the other side will be willing to meet you somewhere less than that.

So an airline should approach Boeing by proposing that Boeing pay them money to fly Boeing jets, rather than the other way around?

That's the kind of absurdity we're talking about here.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 25):
I would place blame 50% on Obama and 50% on Boehner.

I would place 100% blame on Boehner. If he wants to defund ObamaCare and actually means it, then he needs a plan to pass it through the Senate. And he himself has said that this is a fools errand.

Why do you defend a man who has publicly admitted that he is embarking on a futile quest?


User currently offlinePhilBy From France, joined Aug 2013, 603 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7669 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 24):
The very idea of negotiating is to start with your pie-in-the-sky wishes in hopes the other side will be willing to meet you somewhere less than that.
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 24):
With these two statements you've proven that it's the President's fault (and his fellow Democrats) since they're drawing a line in the sand on this.

Unfortunately when, for the sake of soundbites, they've both drawn lines in the sand (i.e. cancel Obamacare, not cancel Obamacare) and polarised the issue there's not much room for comrpomise. 'Lets modify Obamacare ' would come across to the voters as a total submission by the 'cancel' party instead of a compromise.

The world has changed since the system was put in place, reasoned debate is no longer fashionable, and no-one thought to include in the rules a solution for the playground politics that currently pervades the system.


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5344 posts, RR: 14
Reply 28, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7610 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
It would be HORRIBLY damaging to the industry to delay it a year.

So, what you're saying is that even if there is a bad law or bad process or bad whatever, we should continue to fund it (throw good money after bad) because we have already spent the money or it may cost more to reverse or fix the process? Right? That's what you're saying?

All the more reason to dismantle it now. It will be more expensive to dismantle it in 2014 or 2016.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 21):
And there in lies a story, the Republicans fear that most of all, that the ACA will work, and the credit once again for human based government will go to the Democrats. Horror of Horrors.

You're absolutely correct. ACA will work as it's designed. It is designed to collapse under its own weight after it has rid the market of private insurers. After which, the only possible answer will be single-payer medical.

So, how many folks have been booted off their employer medical plans onto these exchanges?
How many private insurers are pulling out of select markets because of Obamacare?
How many employers have modified (reduced) their plans to provide only the minimum mandated by Obamacare?
How many employers have fired employees to get below the limit?
How many employers have reduced hours to get below the limit?

All of these 'unexpected consequences' were expected, if you read the bill. The whole goal of the thing was single-payer from the start.

Obama/Pelosi had to do an end-round to get there because they would never have sold it to the people as a single-payer. Every compromise made by Obama/Pelosi was made to bring more Democrats into the fold. The only thing bi-partisan about Obamacare was the opposition to it.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineCharles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1330 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7572 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
I feel the Republicans will, and I think the polls show it right now.

Yes, and rightfully so. It is frustrating to see your own government being this dysfunctional but that is what the GOP party has brought us. They made their point, voting to repeal the ACA several dozen times. Do we need more posturing, really?

As an independent voter, I can tell you that the behavior of the opposition has convinced me and many other independents to vote Democrat for the time being. Even if the government does not shut down, the damage is done; I would not be able to support the GOP simply because its leaders have proven that they are not to be trusted. If they lose control of the House in 2014, they will have the current leadership to thank for it.


User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2490 posts, RR: 23
Reply 30, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7571 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
I have no interest in a president who says he is willing to compromise to the teleprompter, but stonewalls when it's time to sit down and hammer out an agreement

Yes. And whenever he says something you can be sure he will do nothing or do the opposite.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 21):
the Republicans fear that most of all, that the ACA will work

The Unions aren't too thrilled with the idea either. The administration has decided to delay implementation on soem different programs. I'd say even the inept members of Obama's team see the writing on the wall.
Obamacare as it stands is a TRAIN-WRECK!

The Republicans won't shut down the Government. They will refuse the funds to implement the Train-wreck.

  



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 31, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7537 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 30):
The administration has decided to delay implementation on soem different programs. I'd say even the inept members of Obama's team see the writing on the wall.
Obamacare as it stands is a TRAIN-WRECK!

The Republicans won't shut down the Government. They will refuse the funds to implement the Train-wreck.

They keep saying "Repeal Obamacare and let's get something better in". Well, how about you show us what your "better idea" is before you take away our health care. We all know they got nothing. They just want private insurance to be able to charge whatever they want. How is that so much better than ACA?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26):
I would place 100% blame on Boehner. If he wants to defund ObamaCare and actually means it, then he needs a plan to pass it through the Senate. And he himself has said that this is a fools errand.

Why do you defend a man who has publicly admitted that he is embarking on a futile quest?

I withdraw my ration. And replace it with 80% Boehner, 19% McConnell, 1% Obama.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19381 posts, RR: 58
Reply 32, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7506 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 24):
With these two statements you've proven that it's the President's fault

You forget the bit where Boehner, McCain, and the rest of the GOP leadership already admitted it was their fault.

So my opinion is worthless next to theirs. And I wholeheartedly agree with them.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28):
So, what you're saying is that even if there is a bad law or bad process or bad whatever, we should continue to fund it (throw good money after bad) because we have already spent the money or it may cost more to reverse or fix the process? Right? That's what you're saying?

Nope. I am saying that it is a GOOD law. And the reason YOU think it's a bad law is because your Fox/GOP overlords have told you so. Tell me: have you read it, or read a decent summary? No, you haven't. I have.

And to stop it would be damaging to the industry, to consumers, and...listen carefully: the funding for it is mandatory spending, anyway, so the GOP can't stop it even if the DNC were willing to go along with it.

This is the GOP throwing a tantrum. Although part of me wonders if the Tea Party isn't actually trying to bring about the fall of the USA because they hate the government so much that they are willing to permanently shut it down until it withers away.


User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4941 posts, RR: 19
Reply 33, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7480 times:

You are the first doctor I have heard saying they like Obamacare. That's a first. Most hate it.

And what gets me is that a large segment of our population thinks that Obamacare will be free. When they talk about Obamacare why don't the mention that it will cost you big time?



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7510 posts, RR: 24
Reply 34, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7459 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 2):
b)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-AZ) runs to the media and cries about the Republicans being inflexible
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 13):
Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 2):
b)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-AZ) runs to the media and cries about the Republicans being inflexible
Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 14):
Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-AZ)

Not to nitpick here but Harry Reid's a US Senator from Nevada (NV) not Arizona (AZ).

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 19):
Remember what happened to the Republicans in the mid-1990's.

If you're referring to the last Government shutdown circa 1995-1996; the '96 Congressional and Senatorial election results that followed didn't quite match up with the media-hype pummeling that the GOP received back then regarding the gov't shutdown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...vernment_shutdown_of_1995_and_1996

Excerpt:

The Republican Party had a net loss of eight seats in the House in the 1996 elections but retained a 228-207 seat majority. In the Senate, Republicans gained two seats.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5344 posts, RR: 14
Reply 35, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7451 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 33):
You are the first doctor I have heard saying they like Obamacare. That's a first. Most hate it.

I know:
2 Orthopedic surgeons
1 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Specialist (works at the VA)
1 Psychiatrist
1 Family Practitioner

and a gaggle of nurse...or would that be a murder of nurses?

Either way, none of these folks like it one bit...and the psychiatrist and his family practitioner wife are both decidedly left of center on the political spectrum.


Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 34):
Not to nitpick here but Harry Reid's a US Senator from Nevada (NV) not Arizona (AZ).

My bad. I wonder why AZ stuck in my head?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6785 posts, RR: 34
Reply 36, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7451 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 2):
What is supposed to happen next:

a)The President runs to the camera (with his teleprompter) and whines about the Republicans being inflexible

b)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-AZ) runs to the media and cries about the Republicans being inflexible

c)Speaker of the House Boehner (R-OH) runs to the media and says his work is done and he is waiting on The Senate

d)Both bills go to a conference committee where differences are worked out. The new bill is kicked back for consideration and then on to the presidential pen for a yea or a nay or it dies.

Then what will happen is:

e) Boehner will fold up like a cheap suit and crater as he always has to the Dems.
f) The constitutionally oriented subset of the republicans will continue to be pissed, driving a deeper wedge between RINOs, career oligarchs and those who want true conservativism and the internecine fighting will continue. The GOP will continue to shoot itself in the ass and then lose the next election on top of it.
g) America loses. Continues to lose.
h) Might not be much of an America worth saving after that.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28):
You're absolutely correct. ACA will work as it's designed. It is designed to collapse under its own weight after it has rid the market of private insurers. After which, the only possible answer will be single-payer medical.

So, how many folks have been booted off their employer medical plans onto these exchanges?
How many private insurers are pulling out of select markets because of Obamacare?
How many employers have modified (reduced) their plans to provide only the minimum mandated by Obamacare?
How many employers have fired employees to get below the limit?
How many employers have reduced hours to get below the limit?

All of these 'unexpected consequences' were expected, if you read the bill. The whole goal of the thing was single-payer from the start.

Spot on, sir. Absolutely on the money.

Obamacare has already cratered the economy, people have lost coverage, costs have gone ballistic. It's an economic wet blanket at a time when we can least afford it. It's a jobs killer when we need jobs the most.

And it was a bill horribly crafted, not even read on the floor, deemed to pass, and sold by that witch Pelosi as something we have to pass in order to find out what's in it. Thousands of new regulations, onerous costs, IRS enforcement, death panels (which has been validated), and some still insist on calling this a victory.

It's the single largest power grab by the Federal government EVER undertaken.

So yeah, the House passes a spending bill. Senate will overturn it anyhow. But if the GOP were smart--and they're not--they'd clearly and calmly go on the offensive, explaining why, how and all of it to the American people why Obamacare is awful. THEY should go on the offense and put the petulant Boy King in his place.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12333 posts, RR: 25
Reply 37, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7421 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 1):
Remember the Alamo

That worked out pretty well - for the Mexicans!

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 4):
He wants a blank check...again.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
And every time he has "tried", it was basically on the condition that the GOP gives him everything he wants.

A short history of how we got here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequester_%282013%29
Quote:

On August 2, 2011, President Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 as part of an agreement with Congress to resolve the debt-ceiling crisis. The Act provided for a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the "super committee") to produce legislation by late November that would decrease the deficit by $1.2 trillion over ten years. When the super committee failed to act,[8] another part of the BCA went into effect. This directed automatic across-the-board cuts (known as "sequestrations") split evenly between defense and domestic spending, beginning on January 2, 2013.


In particular, with regard to the "super committee" we read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Committee#Impasse_and_failure

Quote:

The initial proposal from the Democrats on the committee offered 3 trillion in deficit reduction, including 1.3 trillion in new revenue and 400 billion in Medicare savings, but was rejected on partisan lines for the level of tax increases. The Republican Toomey plan proposed 1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, including 300 billion in new revenue, but was rejected because it lowered the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 28%.

It's pretty clear to me that Obama was not asking for a "blank check" nor that "every time" he expected to be given "everything he wants". It's pretty clear that the Dems were willing to put even more on the table for a "grand bargain" but the conservatives were not willing to negotiate on "revenue" i.e. raising taxes on the rich. So, the GOP has gotten what they wanted, the greatest amount of income disparity and wealth concentration since the early 1900s. They also continue to attack programs that prevent the rich from keeping the last penny on the dollar. They continue to make it all about the lower classes whilst the upper classes continue to rake in the cash at historically high proportions.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1256 posts, RR: 8
Reply 38, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7410 times:

Anyone want to bet against a proposition that (1) the House passes a budget without funding for the ACA,(2) the Senate passes a budget with funding for the ACA, and (3) that the House budget plus the ACA portion of the Senate budget exceeds the total of the Senate budget?

User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 39, posted (10 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 7318 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 36):
It's a jobs killer when we need jobs the most.

That's funny because jobs have been being added for months now. Not taken away.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
Although part of me wonders if the Tea Party isn't actually trying to bring about the fall of the USA because they hate the government so much that they are willing to permanently shut it down until it withers away.

The government is us. We the people. So, when you say that, you are saying Tea Party hates we the people. Which is still true.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2717 posts, RR: 18
Reply 40, posted (10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 7320 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 36):
death panels (which has been validated),

Would you care to provide ANY substantiation of this wildly outlandish statement. Preferably from some type of reputabele source besides Faux News!


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 41, posted (10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 7298 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28):
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 21):And there in lies a story, the Republicans fear that most of all, that the ACA will work, and the credit once again for human based government will go to the Democrats. Horror of Horrors.
You're absolutely correct. ACA will work as it's designed. It is designed to collapse under its own weight after it has rid the market of private insurers. After which, the only possible answer will be single-payer medical.

Ok, so why not give it a chance to fail? Why all this hysterical fear of the ACA? 41 votes. The definition of insanity once again." Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result" If this definition is correct, that proves the Republicans are Insane. It will surely fail once again. It takes two to Tango, the Democratically controlled Senate is not going to dance. Neither is Obama. The must and should accept, they lost the election. They are not in control.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 42, posted (10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 7292 times:

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 29):
As an independent voter, I can tell you that the behavior of the opposition has convinced me and many other independents to vote Democrat for the time being. Even if the government does not shut down, the damage is done; I would not be able to support the GOP simply because its leaders have proven that they are not to be trusted. If they lose control of the House in 2014, they will have the current leadership to thank for it.

I could not agree more with you, and I am also an Independent voter, having split my vote many times. Who in their right mind would vote for these clowns. When someone tells me they are going to screw with me and millions of others, I believe them. Listening to them, my teeth chatter. I know when to run in the other direction. It is good to see someone who see's through all this bull from the right.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 43, posted (10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 7292 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 30):
The Republicans won't shut down the Government. They will refuse the funds to implement the Train-wreck.

When you pile the logs on the track, you cause the wreck. They will be blamed for the shutdown. John McCain said today, the Senate will not vote for the house's bill. What else is there to say?



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5177 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 7286 times:

Quoting IADCA (Reply 38):
Anyone want to bet against a proposition that (1) the House passes a budget without funding for the ACA,(2) the Senate passes a budget with funding for the ACA, and (3) that the House budget plus the ACA portion of the Senate budget exceeds the total of the Senate budget?

I'd put good money on that, I think that you are probably spot on.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37):
The initial proposal from the Democrats on the committee offered 3 trillion in deficit reduction, including 1.3 trillion in new revenue and 400 billion in Medicare savings, but was rejected on partisan lines for the level of tax increases. The Republican Toomey plan proposed 1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, including 300 billion in new revenue, but was rejected because it lowered the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 28%.

According to this, and by my math, the Democrats actually proposed more cuts after revenue raises (1.7 tn) than the Republicans (0.9 tn) - in fact the Democrat's proposal included almost double the number of savings than the Republican's proposal.

Now comes the part where I blame both parties: going off what Revelation posted, the President wanted 1.2 tn. Why couldn't they reach a bi-partisan consensus to pass the Democrat proposal without the tax rises? That would cut more than was requested, and not raise taxes which would be unpalatable for the Republicans.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6527 posts, RR: 9
Reply 45, posted (10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 7281 times:

Well apparently they wanted to lower taxes.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5177 posts, RR: 4
Reply 46, posted (10 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 7265 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 45):
Well apparently they wanted to lower taxes.

In which case we're back to Republican intransigence. If a desire to lower taxes - as opposed to keep them constant, not raise them - got in the way of a seemingly common sense compromise then I'm not sure why this even a discussion...

This is more a systemic desire to not reach a "compromise" from a certain element of the political sphere, as opposed to insurmountable hurdles. We are not lacking for ideas, but rather the will to negotiate. I therefore retract what I said above for blaming both parties. When you have certain Congressmen (admittedly a minority) elected with a "no compromise" mandate, it is difficult to blame the other side when things don't get done.




[Edited 2013-09-20 21:10:12]

[Edited 2013-09-20 21:12:21]


Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 47, posted (10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 7215 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 44):
the President wanted 1.2 tn

You just answered your own question. If Obama is for it, the right is against it.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7192 posts, RR: 17
Reply 48, posted (10 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 7207 times:

Guys, I don't care how you put it, but Obamacare has got to go. It's not "affordable" at all. It's an absolute disaster waiting to happen.


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2985 posts, RR: 8
Reply 49, posted (10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 7182 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 48):
It's not "affordable" at all.

Some states would beg to differ.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5177 posts, RR: 4
Reply 50, posted (10 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7103 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 48):
Obamacare has got to go

In which case draft an alternative package which can replace it. Going back to the status quo is simply not an issue.

While some elements of society are yet to recognise it, ACA has already gone to far. The President winning re-election pretty much killed any hopes of repealing it before it went into effect, and assuming a Democrat wins in 2016 then it will have been in effect for at least 6 and most likely 10 years before there is a Republican in the White House to not veto its repeal.

And even if it has "got to go" holding the country to ransom isn't exactly an ethical way to advocate for your agenda. Everybody is well aware that the Senate Democrats and the President won't support its repeal, so by tying the budget it defunding the package is to effectively refuse to pass a budget at all. This is where the Republican Party has become removed from reality that their message doesn't resonate with moderate voters at the moment: this current approach has zero chance of success, nada, so the Republican Party would prefer to throw the country into default and turmoil rather than actually, I don't know, get something done. "Moderates" would prefer to have a budget and a functioning government than ACA repealed. Taking principled stands are one thing, but the Party is on a Kamikaze mission!



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6578 posts, RR: 24
Reply 51, posted (10 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7081 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 36):
THEY should go on the offense and put the petulant Boy King in his place.

But they have nothing to go on the offensive with because they have nothing to replace Obamacare with. I'll admit that Obamacare is far from perfect, but the conservatives can't come up with anything better.

This a fundamental problem with the Republican party. They have no ideas.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5418 posts, RR: 8
Reply 52, posted (10 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7049 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 12):
Obama is the one who wont budge. The Reps have always thrown around different ideas which Obama will not agree to.

Exactly, The Republican's are only offering ideas that they know President Obama or Democrats won't agree too/ And they have to because they excoriated if they even begin to work with their partners in the legislature (in other word Republican's and Democrats actually have to work together and compromise).

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 48):
Guys, I don't care how you put it, but Obamacare has got to go. It's not "affordable" at all. It's an absolute disaster waiting to happen.

Then work to fix the flaws and offer them for passage, and that does not mean "kill the ACA and then nothing else has to be done". Of course they won't and really can't because the populist media hosts will rile up their vocal fans and base. It is a sad situation to see the Republican's in. They are as weak as they ever have been.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2985 posts, RR: 8
Reply 53, posted (10 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7027 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 52):
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 48):
Guys, I don't care how you put it, but Obamacare has got to go. It's not "affordable" at all. It's an absolute disaster waiting to happen.

Then work to fix the flaws and offer them for passage, and that does not mean "kill the ACA and then nothing else has to be done".

What the "Kill the ACA" proponents remind me of is this:



So, because something is broken or not to their liking, they'd rather get rid of it (not even attempting to bring a solution if it's as bad as they claim) instead of trying to fix it. If you were to poll the public, the polls show the law is unpopular, but if asked whether to scrap it altogether, you'll find opposition. People want affordable healthcare, but apparently either people are misinformed or uninformed, and if there's one thing people fear, it's the unknown.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5177 posts, RR: 4
Reply 54, posted (10 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7013 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 50):
issue

* not an option

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 50):
gone to far

by which I mean is implemented, you've got no chance of repealing it.

[Edited 2013-09-21 16:27:11]


Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 55, posted (10 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7007 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 52):
Exactly, The Republican's are only offering ideas that they know President Obama or Democrats won't agree too/ And they have to because they excoriated if they even begin to work with their partners in the legislature (in other word Republican's and Democrats actually have to work together and compromise).

Exactly, they have themselves out on a limb, they have done nothing but rip, tear, and rend this ACA. They cannot go back now, they cannot compromise, how could they? They would look like fools. Which they are of course, but people are not supposed to realize that.

My wife's cousin hates Obama. Unfortunately she has had breast cancer. She could not get health coverage before the ACA. Now she has because of the ACA. She still hates Obama. Now I like the girl, I have known her all my life, but she is a typical right wing fool. Blind hatred for someone who is responsible for her ability to get coverage. Explain that, and I am sure you righties will.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (10 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6997 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 55):

The part your missing is she didn't need this giant bureaucracy to get coverage. The only thing that really needed to be done is deregulate the industry (sell across state lines), pass a set of standards for coverage (like pre-existing coverage), require people to carry catastrophic coverage (not unlike uninsured motorist coverage) then build a safety net for those that can't afford insurance (provide free catastrophic coverage).

I say let ACA ride. The nanny state needs a lesson in how the government will fail you.

[Edited 2013-09-21 17:19:59]

User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 57, posted (10 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6983 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 56):
I say let ACA ride. The nanny state needs a lesson in how the government will fail you.

I agree, let it ride, let it stand or fall on it's own. It can be changed, modified, just as SS and Medicare were, and most other laws. This maniacal opposition is ridiculous. If it fails, let the Democrats pay the price at the polls. If it succeeds, many people will benefit. Is that not the object of this ACA, to help people?



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5344 posts, RR: 14
Reply 58, posted (10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6953 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 57):
I agree, let it ride, let it stand or fall on it's own. It can be changed, modified, just as SS and Medicare were, and most other laws.

Since when have we been able to eliminate an entitlement after people started to recieve the entitlement? Fix it? Let's see, how can it be fixed after the private insurance market has collapsed?

Social Security: the only real changes made to Social Security is the increases in the amount taken from people, the increase in the age of eligibility and the fact that there is no longer a Social Security Trust...or a "lockbox" as a notable politician once called it.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 57):
If it fails,

:
The media, the pundits, the Democrat operatives and the Democrats will blame the Republicans.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 57):
Is that not the object of this ACA, to help people?

No, it's not. It's designed to put even more people on the government dole and ensure that the Democratic Party remains in power forever. It's the same old line: vote for the Republicans and they will take (x) away from you...vote for us and we'll give you everything you need.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 59, posted (10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6937 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 58):
Since when have we been able to eliminate an entitlement after people started to recieve the entitlement? Fix it? Let's see, how can it be fixed after the private insurance market has collapsed?

There we have it, the great fear once again, that it will work, and people will like it, and accept it as necessary to survive, just as we do SS and Medicare. Look where this country would be without them. The poor farm system is no more. We are not going to bring it back. The people spoke in November, remember.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 60, posted (10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6926 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 58):
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 57): Is that not the object of this ACA, to help people?
No, it's not. It's designed to put even more people on the government dole and ensure that the Democratic Party remains in power forever. It's the same old line: vote for the Republicans and they will take (x) away from you...vote for us and we'll give you everything you need.

Is not that the way of politics? When are the Republicans going to learn? They are always the takers, and that is what costs them elections. There are over 300 million now in the US. The vast majority are not wealthy. When a political party tells me that they are going to screw me over, along with my family and friends, I believe them. I believed Romney, it was simple as that.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 61, posted (10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6922 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 58):
vote for the Republicans and they will take (x) away from you...vote for us and we'll give you everything you need.

How much does SS contribute to the deficit? If we get rid of Medicare and let people die, can we please get rid of medical and retirement entitlements for other government employees? Like Congress? Imagine how much that would save!

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 58):
the only real changes made to Social Security is the increases in the amount taken from people, the increase in the age of eligibility and the fact that there is no longer a Social Security Trust...or a "lockbox" as a notable politician once called it.

Which was done so the right could pay for their programs. Like Reaganomics. What a wonderful thing that has been, huh? We were all supposed to get super rich off "trickle down" economics. The median income in this country is just over $51,000 and, in todays dollars, is actually LESS than 1982.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/12/news...y/median-income-poverty/index.html



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1904 posts, RR: 2
Reply 62, posted (10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6918 times:

It wasn't that long ago during the gun control debate that the President and its supporters were enamored over polls that said the majority of Americans want action. Interesting how we have a majority that don't support the ACA in its current form, yet now that doesn't matter the President and supporters.

Proof of people with no moral code. A corrupt government will give its people corrupt results. All they want is their way. They want control over people.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 56):
I say let ACA ride. The nanny state needs a lesson in how the government will fail you.

I agree that we need the lesson. Unfortunately the price of that lesson will be so high that we shouldn't let it happen.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 53):
So, because something is broken or not to their liking, they'd rather get rid of it (not even attempting to bring a solution if it's as bad as they claim) instead of trying to fix it.

The issue is that there's no "fixing" Obamacare. The health care affordability issue is on the cost side of the equation. Further subsidizing health care and artificially increasing overall demand will only increase the overall cost to society, unless there's a equal match to the supply side of the equation. We know that won't happen here. Health care is far from a free market, and so it can't adjust on its own, and this bill doesn't create it either. Some people will get a smaller bill for health care, but that's the micro level. The macro level says that this will be a net increase cost to society and further weaken our standard of living. So there's simply no chance that the ACA will improve the overall health care equation or be a step in the right direction where a fix can be implemented.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 63, posted (10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6898 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 62):
Proof of people with no moral code. A corrupt government will give its people corrupt results. All they want is their way. They want control over people.

Have you listened to the Tea Party recently? They want to get rid of government. Our government is "of the people, for the people, by the people." So, the Tea Party wants to get rid of us. The average citizen. And they are the ones in control of the talking points. Thanks, right-wing! Great choice!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5177 posts, RR: 4
Reply 64, posted (10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6897 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 62):
It wasn't that long ago during the gun control debate that the President and its supporters were enamored over polls that said the majority of Americans want action. Interesting how we have a majority that don't support the ACA in its current form, yet now that doesn't matter the President and supporters.

Proof of people with no moral code

To be fair, no politician has a monopoly on twisting polls to support their agenda. Both sides do it.

There's statistics and damn lies, and all that...

And anyway the majority of US citizens want the ACA to be replaced with something else if it is repealed, and we are still waiting to know what the Right propose that the "something else" is.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 65, posted (10 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6893 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 64):
the majority of US citizens want the ACA to be replaced with something else if it is repealed, and we are still waiting to know what the Right propose that the "something else" is.

Right.

They got all up in Pelosi's grill about "let's just pass it and see..." but they refuse to replace ACA with anything at all. The right just wants to repeal ACA and figure something out after. When they get around to it. After Benghazi. After the debt ceiling. After voter disenfranchisement. After war with Syria and Iran. After "job creation". They might get around to finding an alternative to ACA.

I think they are just upset that Democrats did something.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12333 posts, RR: 25
Reply 66, posted (10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6791 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 41):
Ok, so why not give it a chance to fail? Why all this hysterical fear of the ACA? 41 votes. The definition of insanity once again." Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result" If this definition is correct, that proves the Republicans are Insane. It will surely fail once again. It takes two to Tango, the Democratically controlled Senate is not going to dance. Neither is Obama. The must and should accept, they lost the election. They are not in control.

"The Party of No" is also the "Party of Fear" if not the "Party of the Apocylapse". Hysterical fear is a big part of their DNA. Driving towards shutting down the government which in turn means screwing the economy is absolute proof of this.

The reality is they have nothing else to cling to. Nothing else. Ironically the further they take this, the worse off they will be when the inevitable failures keep coming. That will drive them to more apocalyptic thinking, which will drive them further towards the fringes and away from the mainstream.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 44):
According to this, and by my math, the Democrats actually proposed more cuts after revenue raises (1.7 tn) than the Republicans (0.9 tn) - in fact the Democrat's proposal included almost double the number of savings than the Republican's proposal.

Now comes the part where I blame both parties: going off what Revelation posted, the President wanted 1.2 tn. Why couldn't they reach a bi-partisan consensus to pass the Democrat proposal without the tax rises? That would cut more than was requested, and not raise taxes which would be unpalatable for the Republicans.

My post was there to counter the silly hype-driven statements that Obama "wants a blank check" yada yada. Clearly he was giving up a lot of things but wanted a lot in return. The GOP just never saw it in their interest to give an inch.

There is no doubt that Obama was playing politics, but that's what the job is, folks. The GOP just seems to feel they are better off forcing these showdowns instead of actively reaching agreements that would start moving things in their direction.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 46):
In which case we're back to Republican intransigence. If a desire to lower taxes - as opposed to keep them constant, not raise them - got in the way of a seemingly common sense compromise then I'm not sure why this even a discussion...

By all measures actual taxes paid by corporations and wealthy individuals are at historic lows and wealth disparity is at all time highs. The GOP "achieved" a lot during the Bush era and their goal now is to make the issue be about the poor as opposed to the wealthy. Somehow they don't seem to understand why that's not going to work too well.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 50):

While some elements of society are yet to recognise it, ACA has already gone to far. The President winning re-election pretty much killed any hopes of repealing it before it went into effect, and assuming a Democrat wins in 2016 then it will have been in effect for at least 6 and most likely 10 years before there is a Republican in the White House to not veto its repeal.

And, believe it or not, if there were to be a GOP president in 2016, we still might not see ACA repealled because as you say there is no Plan B out there.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 51):
This a fundamental problem with the Republican party. They have no ideas.

  

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 56):
The part your missing is she didn't need this giant bureaucracy to get coverage. The only thing that really needed to be done is deregulate the industry (sell across state lines), pass a set of standards for coverage (like pre-existing coverage), require people to carry catastrophic coverage (not unlike uninsured motorist coverage) then build a safety net for those that can't afford insurance (provide free catastrophic coverage).

It's too bad the GOP decided early on not to engage in sensible debate and went right to "death panel" hype. As most of the posts here are saying, there's a lot of issues with ACA, but the GOP plan to go for all or nothing by shutting down the government is only going to end in tears for them.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6750 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 66):

It's too bad the GOP decided early on not to engage in sensible debate and went right to "death panel" hype. As most of the posts here are saying, there's a lot of issues with ACA, but the GOP plan to go for all or nothing by shutting down the government is only going to end in tears for them.

There was never an opportunity for sensible debate. That's another myth. Hell, people admittedly didn't even bother to read the damn bill before they passed it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 66):
"The Party of No" is also the "Party of Fear" if not the "Party of the Apocylapse". Hysterical fear is a big part of their DNA. Driving towards shutting down the government which in turn means screwing the economy is absolute proof of this.

Is that why the left always declares the end of the world will come if they don't get what they want in a budget? Seems to me you're a bit confused about which party is the "Party of Fear".


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19381 posts, RR: 58
Reply 68, posted (10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6707 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 67):
There was never an opportunity for sensible debate. That's another myth. Hell, people admittedly didn't even bother to read the damn bill before they passed it.

Most bills are boiler plate full of double-negatives and other legalese meant to precisely define laws and rules.

What is important is that they have read a summary meant for humans to read. I have not read the actual bill because you need a full legal education to read it. I have read the summaries and what's in it is not so horrible.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 64):
And anyway the majority of US citizens want the ACA

The majority of Americans have no idea what is in the ACA and that is why they oppose it. It has nothing to do with the actual ACA. There is also the blatant GOP/Koch lies about it, ranging from death panels to rationing to direct government control of your healthcare. None of it is true (at least no more true than it was before the ACA).

But here's a poll that does mean something: 51% of Americans will blame the GOP if the government shuts down. About 30% will blame Mr. Obama and the Democrats. The remainder would split the blame easily. And the GOP should listen to that poll.

If the GOP wants to get rid of ObamaCare, then they need to do it the democratic way: get enough votes to take the Senate and the White House. But when you demand something you admit is impossible as your starting position, that isn't any sort of good-faith governance. That's a childish temper tantrum.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 69, posted (10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6697 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 67):
Is that why the left always declares the end of the world will come if they don't get what they want in a budget? Seems to me you're a bit confused about which party is the "Party of Fear".

Ho, Ho! that is a laugh, we all know who the party of fear and no is. That was answered in the November election. Remember the 47% statement? We did when we voted. Keep denying, denying.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5177 posts, RR: 4
Reply 70, posted (10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6673 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 68):
And anyway the majority of US citizens want the ACA

For clarity, that was only half of my statement, but...

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 68):
The majority of Americans have no idea what is in the ACA and that is why they oppose it. It has nothing to do with the actual ACA

...I agree 100%

There has been so much hysteria and conjecture from day 1 that most people don't have the first clue what it means.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently onlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 71, posted (10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6660 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
Who will hold the bag for shutting down the government with the American People? I feel the Republicans will, and I think the polls show it right now. A Pyrrhic Victory maybe for the Republicans?

The GOP will hold the bag, but the real fear the GOP leadership has is that if implemented, their constituents may really wonder what the big deal was. The GOP lost control of this issue, and now 4 years later they are wanting to use government to get what they want, when they didn't care enough while it was passed to issue fixes that would have made it stronger. The GOP has become an anarchy in matters of fiscal policy and totalitarian in matters of privacy.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 72, posted (10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6599 times:

Where are the jobs? The right promised us jobs. So far, we have been met with how many votes to de-fund ACA, hearings ad nauseum over Benghazi, votes approving the naming of federal buildings and threats over the debt. But, no jobs bills.

We have heard that only freeloaders are sponging off the government in the form of food stamps. Even though people have to have income to qualify for food stamps and that 85% of food stamp recipients are seniors, disabled and children.

But, the main point is: where is this great jobs bill they told us they wanted passed?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12333 posts, RR: 25
Reply 73, posted (10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6510 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 72):
But, the main point is: where is this great jobs bill they told us they wanted passed?

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/toles




Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6527 posts, RR: 9
Reply 74, posted (10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6484 times:

Yeah, 4 years on one issue, it's pretty impressive. Here when a law is really unpopular we have millions in the streets protesting week after week, for several months (even more when it's the conservatives and the law is gay marriage), but in the end either the government decides it's not worth it and kills the law, or stays strong and things dies down, and the opposition will rarely undo it if they get into power (although if they do, they actually have the power to undo things, and it happens every time with less important bills). Both have merits, appearing to "do the right thing" for your country, or kill the law because you have "listened to the people". If there are no protests and the opposition is only political, there is no benefit in killing the law, though. You would only show weakness to both your supporters and opponents.

Will Obama soon announce a gay marriage bill to put a new coin in the machine ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 75, posted (10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6328 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28):

After which, the only possible answer will be single-payer medical.



non-"Single-payer medical" =
... many millions of working Americans PAY for their health insurance through salary deductions, which goes to pay for not only their healthcare costs (which are much higher but no more effective than anywhere else in the first world) but also pays for a bloated and inefficient insurance-company infrastrcutre and of course inusrance company profits.

... & the cost of healthcare for those who cannot pay for it is paid for by the government, aka working Americans.

v.

Single-payer medical =
... many millions of working Americans PAY for their health insurance through salary deductions, which goes to pay for their healthcare costs.

... & the cost of healthcare for those who can not pay for it is paid for by the government, aka working Americans.


.
.
.
The pooled-risk model of insurance is exactly the same as the "Single-payer," model. If having multiple insurance companies made US healthcare more efficient, I would agree its a better way to go. But in fact its hugely inefficient. A single inusrer is the way to go: unless you are currently getting rich off the current US healthcare model or have outsourced your thinking and rehtoric to a politcal party.




Pu


User currently onlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6331 times:

Ted Cruz is an grandstanding absolute idiot. What a waste of time. He has officially replaced Joel Osteen as my least favourite person from Texas.

Oh how I long for the days when politicians were actually committed to the common good instead of creating sound bytes in order to help further their own careers! I guess such is the price of technological progress...


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5177 posts, RR: 4
Reply 77, posted (10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6332 times:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...5d-5b7f66349852_story.html?hpid=z2

I've always liked Dana Milbank, he writes a lot of sense:

Quote:
His action hurt his fellow Republicans without doing anything to abolish Obamacare. But the filibuster did achieve something: It gave Cruz more TV exposure and further endeared him to the tea party. And for the ambitious senator from Texas, the most important thing has always been Ted Cruz.

As he brought the Senate to a halt, Cruz told his captive audience many salient facts:

He likes pancakes.

He’s “a big fan” of White Castle.

His father liked to watch movies three times.

“ ‘Green Eggs and Ham’ was my favorite book when I was a little boy.”

His parents were small-business owners
Quote:
If this were the Roman senate, they would have had a phrase for what is happening to Cruz: Sic semper sui amatoribus. Thus always to self-lovers.

Quote:
Perhaps Cruz’s filibuster would have had more support if it had some chance of succeeding

Democrats, of course, were delighted with the Republicans’ bickering. President Obama was on the world stage, giving an address to the United Nations that included a passionate defense of why he believes the United States is the indispensable nation. “Some may disagree, but I believe America is exceptional,” Obama said.

Republicans, by contrast, were arguing about “cloture” and “post-cloture” votes to defund Obamacare. Is there any doubt about who will win the coming showdown?

But if you're in doubt why he is doing this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...wp/2013/09/24/what-ted-cruz-wants/



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12333 posts, RR: 25
Reply 78, posted (10 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6233 times:

Which current GOP Senator said the following just yesterday?

Quote:

“I just don’t believe anybody benefits from shutting the government down, and certainly Republicans don’t. We learned that in 1995. We’re in the minority. We have to find a way of standing up for our principles without immolating ourselves in front of everybody, in a way when we don’t have the votes to do it.”

I would have guessed none would be capable of uttering such a statement these days...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 79, posted (10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6190 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 78):
Which current GOP Senator said the following just yesterday?

Quote:
“I just don’t believe anybody benefits from shutting the government down, and certainly Republicans don’t. We learned that in 1995. We’re in the minority. We have to find a way of standing up for our principles without immolating ourselves in front of everybody, in a way when we don’t have the votes to do it.”

I would have guessed none would be capable of uttering such a statement these days...

I would like to know who had the courage, and the smarts in the Republican Party these days to say such a thing. The amazing thing is that it is the Truth.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2985 posts, RR: 8
Reply 80, posted (10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6183 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 79):
I would like to know who had the courage, and the smarts in the Republican Party these days to say such a thing. The amazing thing is that it is the Truth.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 78):
Which current GOP Senator said the following just yesterday?

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Just a moment of moderation in his party, just like John McCain's statement reminding his colleagues that a debate was held when ObamaCare was being voted on, that the issue was central to the 2012 elections and that the American people spoke by re-electing Obama.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5177 posts, RR: 4
Reply 81, posted (10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6179 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 78):
Which current GOP Senator said the following just yesterday?
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 79):
I would like to know who had the courage

Sen Orrin Hatch (R-UT)


It looks like the crisis might be passing, albeit for now ... it looks like the House GOP leadership are prepared to take out the defund-ACA provision from the spending plan, but then play brinksmanship with the debt ceiling instead:

Quote:
With federal agencies set to close their doors in five days, House Republicans began exploring a potential detour on the path to a shutdown: shifting the fight over President Obama’s health-care law onto a separate bill that would raise the nation's debt limit.

If it works, the strategy could clear the way for the House to approve a simple measure to keep the government open into the new fiscal year, which will begin Tuesday, without hotly contested provisions to defund the Affordable Care Act.

However, it would set the stage for an even more nerve-wracking deadline on Oct. 17, with conservatives using the threat of the nation’s first default on its debt to force the president to accept a one-year delay of the health-care law’s mandates, taxes and benefits.

Obama administration officials dismissed the plan, vowing that there would be no delay of the insurance initiative, which is set to begin enrolling consumers Tuesday. They argued that Republicans risk destroying their own credibility among voters, who strongly disapprove of such brinksmanship regardless of their views on the Affordable Care Act.

...

The debt-limit bill will be loaded with dozens of other conservative priorities, including the approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline and the abolition of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 82, posted (10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6170 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 80):
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Just a moment of moderation in his party, just like John McCain's statement reminding his colleagues that a debate was held when ObamaCare was being voted on, that the issue was central to the 2012 elections and that the American people spoke by re-electing Obama.

Yes, just a moment and that is a sad thing in this country of Democracy.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 81):
It looks like the crisis might be passing, albeit for now ... it looks like the House GOP leadership are prepared to take out the defund-ACA provision from the spending plan, but then play brinksmanship with the debt ceiling instead:

Of course, we cannot have a functioning congress, if we did, we might get something accomplished to help us all. I hope and pray, this insanity is remembered in 2014.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12333 posts, RR: 25
Reply 83, posted (10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6118 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 81):
... it looks like the House GOP leadership are prepared to take out the defund-ACA provision from the spending plan, but then play brinksmanship with the debt ceiling instead:

Which is an even worse loser than the defunding move.

Polls are showing that regardless of the popularity of the ACA that the public does NOT like the tactic of holding up funding of other activities to try to defeat ACA.

As above, some of the more popular aspects of ACA are already in place or are kicking in right now, so it's already too late.

Mark my word, the government will NOT default on its debt. There is no sensible reason for it. No politician will want to be held responsible for it.

Each time the GOP moves towards this kind of move and it fails, they are only weakening themselves. They may want to push the country over the brink, but no one else wants to go with them. They will lose this show down and weaken themselves in the process. ACA will no longer be an issue and then, god forbid, they might just have to act like legislators and work things out in the Congress (am I dreaming?).



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 84, posted (10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6110 times:

Shut down the government?

Now there's something i'd vote for.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 85, posted (10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6064 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 84):
Shut down the government?

Now there's something i'd vote for.

Why does that not surprise me. Might I ask, what government? You show United Kingdom, and you advocate shutting down a government? Our government, Great Britain's, or just any government? Just for the hell of it? What?



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 86, posted (10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6014 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 84):
Shut down the government?

Now there's something i'd vote for.

Yes, but you'd not want to live in Somalia would you?

A wish of a spoiled westerner who has no inkling that being born the developed world with all that terrible government, he has won the lottery of life by default. Compared to large swathes of humanity, many of which live under the rule of a bunch of gangsters pretending to be a government or the local warlord.
Which is why so many of them are trying to get to the West, even at the risk of their own lives.

So why not do a little to balance to traffic by going to where they are escaping from?
You don't know your born.

To topic, let these GOP clowns carry on carrying on, most people in democracies, even if they did not vote for the current government, do not like those who lost an election where this health policy was a central issue, playing sore loser, spoiled brat games, worse still when they threaten the wider economy.
Maybe the US is a bit different in that they seem to have more extremists who are politically active.
Or they just make much more noise, in this, I am reminded of what I was taught as a child, 'a loud talker is an ignorant person'.
So true of the GOP/Tea Party crowd.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 87, posted (10 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5988 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 86):
To topic, let these GOP clowns carry on carrying on, most people in democracies, even if they did not vote for the current government, do not like those who lost an election where this health policy was a central issue, playing sore loser, spoiled brat games, worse still when they threaten the wider economy.
Maybe the US is a bit different in that they seem to have more extremists who are politically active.
Or they just make much more noise, in this, I am reminded of what I was taught as a child, 'a loud talker is an ignorant person'.
So true of the GOP/Tea Party crowd.

Amen brother from across the pond. Once in awhile on here, I can see why we are good friends with Great Britain.  



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently onlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 88, posted (10 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5988 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 86):
many of which live under the rule of a bunch of gangsters pretending to be a government or the local warlord.

The government and gangsters are really on the same spectrum. Stalin was a gangster. Some slightly more savy gang leaders use the electorate to legitimise their dirty work - usually propagandising them to get their way. They won't overtly threaten you but they'll still take half of your earnings, and inflate (steal) your savings to further their ambitions for power. The monopoly on force is in my view possibly the only true natural monopoly and thus inevitable, so i merely ask that whoever the local gangster/government is, that they use as little coercion as possible.

I have never advocated anarchy (shutting down the government within the context of this thread does not indicate completely disbanding it) and i'm getting slightly sick of Somalia being the goto stawman dismissal - the rule of law is necessary for capitalism to function.

Of course the US (and the UK) has no money and is producing utterly embarrassing deficits, so the only option is to shut down vast swathes of it. Failure to do so now will only result in more painful problems later on, hence my surprise that shutting down the government is assumed to be an apparently negative outcome. I would be absolutely delighted with such a prospect.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5177 posts, RR: 4
Reply 89, posted (10 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5979 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 81):
It looks like the crisis might be passing, albeit for now

Spoke too soon!

Republican hard-liners block strategy to avoid federal government shutdown

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5418 posts, RR: 8
Reply 90, posted (10 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5953 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 89):

Spoke too soon!

Republican hard-liners block strategy to avoid federal government shutdown

Personally I am at the point now where I am OK with the Republican's shutting down the government. I have accepted it as inevitable. I know it needs to be fought and resisted but at this point in is simply a political game and calculation for them and they will have to suffer the consequences. Yes it is very unfortunate that it will impact many people but if they are determined to do so they have the power.

Of course the ridiculous part is that it is the Republican's (well the "hardliners" or Tea Party) that created the situation with the ACA/healthcare cost problems but they just blame anyone and everyone else and many believe them. It is sad but it is what it is.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 91, posted (10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5885 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 88):
Of course the US (and the UK) has no money and is producing utterly embarrassing deficits, so the only option is to shut down vast swathes of it. Failure to do so now will only result in more painful problems later on, hence my surprise that shutting down the government is assumed to be an apparently negative outcome. I would be absolutely delighted with such a prospect.

I still don't think you get it, at all.
Maybe you should should meet some survivors of Stalin's terror and get some perspective.

Have no money? Compared to who?
A majority of the world's population know what it is to really have no money, live in a state that really has no money - or what there is being stashed in some thug's multiple offshore accounts.
Sitting alongside, in a rather apt way, some of the real gangsters who caused the recession in the West.
None of who were elected by the general population.

You are so lucky but don't know it, maybe lift your eyes to the real world, away from narrow dogma.

Many of my friends work in the public services, oddly enough, they are just like anyone else.
Here's the thing, I don't but I'm not the one who has had years of worry about my job, pre dating the recession even, of effective pay freezes well ahead of the private sector. On average paid less than the private sector doing similar jobs anyway.
At least one became ill with stress.
These are hard working tax payers same as everyone else.

My sister who has worked in the courts system for years, advancing only after working hard, doing courses, exams, having to work in two places often in the same day with long commutes between, now has this bonkers idea of having to, yet again, apply for her own job, due to some BS about privatising this sector of the judicial system.
Who'll get the tax payer funded gift? Only two I can think of.
G4S, after that great job they diid at the Olympics?
Or Serco - now under investigation for inventing false contracts - paid for by you and I, as well as their staff at an immigration centre sexually abusing those they are paid for, by you and I, to guard and care for.

I'm off topic (sorry folks though I suggest the above does have some resonance with a US government shutdown) but I cite these as it's real people, then there is my experience, which happens to add up to the exact opposite of what this government (disproportionately made up of those born to rich parents, who have never had to go out and earn because they have to), and their friends in the foreign owned/tax dodging/phone hacking press say.
And you've swallowed it too.

So in wanting a US shutdown, you think that those who fought and where injured for their country should suffer? Just to give one of many examples.

Again, you are so fortunate, not only in comparison with the third world but also closer to home in many ways too.
The public services have already supported you even if you don't know or accept it, they will if you need them again - and you will - so be careful what you wish for.


User currently onlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 92, posted (10 months 5 hours ago) and read 5808 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 91):
You are so lucky but don't know it

Not sure why you deem it necessary to suggest i am ungrateful to be brought up in a richer part of the world.

It's really just a difference in opinions about how an economy should function. I believe that the government intervention in the economy results in a poorer outcome for most people.

If you think the recession was caused by greedy banksters then i'd encourage you to explore alternative theories.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 93, posted (10 months 3 hours ago) and read 5781 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 92):
If you think the recession was caused by greedy banksters then i'd encourage you to explore alternative theories

Which would be? It was the government who deregulated the financial sector and that gave the banks leeway to do what they wanted. You say it was all caused by the government. In a way, it was. If the government hadn't deregulated banks, the Great Recession would not have happened.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 88):
the only option is to shut down vast swathes of it

Really? That's the only way? When the United States citizens pay the lowest taxes of any Western nation? Cutting the government is the ONLY way to save everything?

I will grant you there are parts of the government that need to be cut. But, demands from the right wing to fund postal workers pensions 50 years out then scream how the postal service is broke and needs to be closed, what about that? What about cutting funding to IRS then screaming about how they are broke and it does not work?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 94, posted (10 months 2 hours ago) and read 5754 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 93):
Which would be?

Reckless monetary policies by central banks of course. All in a foolish attempt to suppress the .com bursting.

Amusingly we are now setting ourselves up for an even bigger crash because central banks are fighting the current problems with the very same nonsense that got us into it. That is why Mr Benanke recently bottled the ending of QE - he knows the US is now addicted to cheap money and cannot sustain a rise in interest rates. Same in many other countries including the UK.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 95, posted (10 months 1 hour ago) and read 5745 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 92):
Not sure why you deem it necessary to suggest i am ungrateful to be brought up in a richer part of the world.

It's really just a difference in opinions about how an economy should function. I believe that the government intervention in the economy results in a poorer outcome for most people.

If you think the recession was caused by greedy banksters then i'd encourage you to explore alternative theories.

That's a bit like saying Neville Chamberlin invaded Poland in 1939.
Erm, no.

It was 1929 all over again, just this time in a more connected world.

I do agree that governments were at fault too, by letting the casino, coke head idiots in the City do it.
Because they allowed dogma to overrule common sense.
It's not just the banking collapse though is it?
Multiple frauds in both the UK and US, from Madoff to LIBOR, to PPI and mis-selling of homes.

And when the 'masters of the universe' (their own self description) went tits up, who did they plead for help from?
Why, the despised governments who they had always said should 'get out of our way'.

But a short plane flight away from the UK, is a large nation with a well functioning capitalist economy, largely based on actually making things and not in some 3rd world slave labour sweat shops either.
Also with a powerful financial sector, which actually supports the real economy.
Including a bedrock of a small to medium, often family owned business sector.
In fact, the imagined Thatcherite/Reaganomic dream, in many ways, made real. But one that never really happened in those two countries those leaders came from.

They have done all this by not recklessly over de-regulating the financial sector, by not being obsessed with short term booms in an overheated and ultimately destructive property sector.
Through all this, they also conduct their economic affairs in many ways deemed doomed to failure in the Anglo-US right wing orthodoxy.
But fail they have not.

Their leader, an unassuming woman, of conservative values (in local terms) from what was the East of her country, has just been re-elected.
Of course she has.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7054 posts, RR: 8
Reply 96, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5684 times:

A couple items.
We are told the debt ceiling is no big deal, yet everyone is taught in schools that we have a debt limit and when you go to borrow your have a limit based on your income and assets.
The big problem with government is that it does not generate sustainable revenue, taxes are supposed to be used to provide military, police, fire services and civil service jobs. When governments expand to provide jobs for the citizens in service fields where they cannot charge to cover expenses (larger civil service) it feeds on itself and thus becomes bloated.
I wonder why governments don't get into business, say running mall's, hotels, factories etc. you know business where customers will pay for goods or services which cover the cost of operation. If they cannot be efficient there why exactly would they be efficient where income and expenses are divorced from each other?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 93):
Really? That's the only way? When the United States citizens pay the lowest taxes of any Western nation? Cutting the government is the ONLY way to save everything?

So a question, since US business have some of the highest tax rates which may be why the citizens rates are so low, will the business rates drop if the citizens rates go up, or are we simply looking to obtain more money for increased government spending?


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13032 posts, RR: 12
Reply 97, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5661 times:

The shutdown will seriously affect everyone in some way. Each day of the shutdown means less money in circulation as workers are not paid. In turn governments in their home states lose income taxes, sales taxes, less spent on goods on services.
National Parks, the museums and other government run attractions in places like DC will be shut down which means hotels, restaurants, (including airlines and airports) and other services that make money from them will be hurt. Foreign businesses won't be able to go to embassies and consulates to do business, visitors won't be able to get visas hurting 1000's of spending visitors.
Businesses won't be able to do business with the government, or it will be delayed, won't get paid for months which can hurt revenues, may destroy deals and some businesses.
What about the hardship to military families who are not getting paychecks, could go into debt while their spouses/parent(s)are facing death in Afghanistan and elsewhere. It is also unlikely many government workers will never get any make up pay, probably have no raises for the foreseeable future, and in reality cuts in pay as medical insurance costs shifted more and more to them.
For those that think the Republicans will lose, for the shutdown, they only will lose a few seats. Too many voters support their tax and government regulation cuts, their love for gun owners, are against abortion and cutting spending on the poor but also believe we can't run at huge and increasing debts in good times and bad.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 98, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5632 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 96):
will the business rates drop if the citizens rates go up, or are we simply looking to obtain more money for increased government spending?

So, this is a black-and-white issue? There is no middle ground? There are no other options?

As a parallel, Obama threatened to bomb Syria. That was ONE option. He kept the options open, obviously. It was not a black-and-white issue. Why don't people understand that many issues are not black-and-white?

Business rates may be high but they pass that on to us. So, even though we pay low personal income taxes, we subsidize business taxes when we shop.

There is also the matter of tariffs. It used to be that money collected from other government in the form of tariffs went to pay the government's bills. Now, tariffs are low also. There is more than one side to this issue.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 99, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5589 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 95):
I do agree that governments were at fault too, by letting the casino, coke head idiots in the City do it.

The government actively encouraged them. If you understand how the central banking system works --> Central bank lends newly created money to commercial banks at cheap rates so as to lower interest rates further down the system. Thus commercial banks are thus really just proxies to the central bank. Since Thatcher came in real interest rates (Base Rate-RPI) have been around 3%, but between 2002-2007 they averaged 1%, and during that time house prices nearly doubled.

The Bank of England raised interest rates way to late to prevent the bubble. Brown kept telling us he'd ended boom and bust, but really he hadn't, he just wasn't interested in busting the bubbles. Not only that but between 2002-2007 (inclusive) he ran up a £200bn deficit!

But one has to ask themselves why the Bank of England is setting interest rates anyway? The government can't centrally plan the price of money any more than it can centrally plan the price of a car or an airline ticket. The price of money like all things, should be decided by the market.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7054 posts, RR: 8
Reply 100, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5549 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 98):
So, this is a black-and-white issue? There is no middle ground? There are no other options?

What, based on the last fight, we are still waiting for the sky to fall when the sequester kicks in, how exactly does one get past the rhetoric if no one wants to talk about doing anything. What compromise was reached on sequester, what compromise is beng talked about now, we all know that the cliff is getting closer and all everyone is saying is either go over the cliff or talk about something after the car heads in the other direction.
Maybe if folks were actually talking about what compromise they would do the supporters on the outside who are not radicals would be heard.
Just a thought.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 101, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5540 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 99):
The government actively encouraged them.

True. And it was almost an across the board political consensus - given that the then opposition Tories were if anything for even more de-regulation, not that you hear that now from Osborne's lying mouth. He came back from Ireland in 2006 saying we had to be more like them. But then so did that creep Salmond.
Anyone who questioned it - well they were 'backwards', were out of tune with reality.
Even gave a gong that the worst banker in living memory, Fred 'the shred' from a Labour government, recommended by Salmond ('my good friend Fred') and cheered on by the Tories.

The reason I cited Germany is to show that it doesn't have to be that way, never had to be.
And what is Gideon's new master-plan, another (London and SE England) housing speculative bubble.


User currently onlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 102, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5547 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 101):
True. And it was almost an across the board political consensus - given that the then opposition Tories were if anything for even more de-regulation

Again not to do with regulations. To do with an expansive monetary policy. Expanding the money supply makes bad loans look good, so i fail to see what regulations could have actually done.

You have to understand the importance of the price of money and the role this price plays in a stable economy.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6527 posts, RR: 9
Reply 103, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5523 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 96):
I wonder why governments don't get into business, say running mall's, hotels, factories etc.

Ever heard of Airbus ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7054 posts, RR: 8
Reply 104, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5498 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 103):
Ever heard of Airbus ?

I guess I should have been more specific, in Europe government does get involved in business much more than in the US, the last business I think they owned that was successful was a freight train company which I think they ultimately sold, Amtrack is the only other one I can think of.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 105, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5443 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 100):
What compromise was reached on sequester

The last time this happened, Boehner whined and complained that Obama was unwilling to compromise while, at the same time, saying he got 99% of what his sect wanted. Which is it?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7054 posts, RR: 8
Reply 106, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5404 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 105):
The last time this happened, Boehner whined and complained that Obama was unwilling to compromise while, at the same time, saying he got 99% of what his sect wanted. Which is it?

So all sides simply follow each other, and you wonder why the gridlock exist. Obama has now taken a page from the Tea Party with a no compromise stance on the debt ceiling, the Senate leader the same on the Health Care funding issue.
One thing that still has me confused, the SCOTUS legalized the portion of Health Care which got to them by making it a tax, which can always be repealed, so how long will the uncertainty exist, unless the Republican party is disbanded or they change their philosophy of lower taxes and government, the health care tax will always be a target.


User currently onlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 107, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5366 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 106):
unless the Republican party is disbanded or they change their philosophy of lower taxes and government, the health care tax will always be a target.

No the health care tax will not be a target, because the GOP is going to come around to the general realization that it makes things cheaper for the middle and upper age brackets. Their bread and butter. Just like illegal immigration, those that have tried to do things the right way have wound up paying for those that are not able or willing to pay into the system. The Individual mandate is necessary and required to keep the system ticking without getting control. The GOP is just patently against it because it seems like it is an extra tax and an expansion of government, when in reality it is a common sense solution to a very real problem.

The GOP is so pro business, that here in NC they just gave a break to state businesses by exempting them for 9 months from having to do background checks on employees. They claim it is the feds job to keep them out of the country. It is a pretty sad state of affairs. The GOP just doesn't make sense anymore. Low taxes and Less Government don't make sense when the common citizen is getting taken advantage of.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7054 posts, RR: 8
Reply 108, posted (9 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5332 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 107):
The GOP is just patently against it because it seems like it is an extra tax

Some folks do think the Supreme Court was wrong to legalize a portion as a tax, so they are not alone.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 107):
The GOP is so pro business,

So, they have never been able to lower the tax rate on business which is one of the highest in the industrial world, so their workaround has been what, putting loopholes in the tax code?

In general terms I am not against smaller government, the more government is involved in the economy the slower it is to respond to anything, in some instances it is actually unable to respond, and nowhere in the world has government proven to be fiscally responsible. Unfortunately, to speak of fiscal responsibility is to be classed as a Tea Party lunatic, so once again no compromise.


User currently onlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 109, posted (9 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5312 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 108):
Some folks do think the Supreme Court was wrong to legalize a portion as a tax, so they are not alone

But it makes sense, and it makes sense especially in the light that any other effort to get healthcare under control would involve a tax. We are all in it together weather it is the need for Nuclear bomb, a road, a national park, or healthcare for those unfortunate enough to have ailments.

Quoting par13del (Reply 108):
So, they have never been able to lower the tax rate on business which is one of the highest in the industrial world, so their workaround has been what, putting loopholes in the tax code?

The Tax rate is never the issue. the Actual relative taxes paid are insanely low. The real issue big business has in the US is the Cost of Living and real wages.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 110, posted (9 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5231 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 106):
Obama has now taken a page from the Tea Party with a no compromise stance on the debt ceiling, the Senate leader the same on the Health Care funding issue.

Good. That is how they should have been from the start. I heard someone once say Ried is using Marquis of Queensbury rules at a bar fight.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 107):
The GOP is so pro business,

Funny how the pro-business party is not listening to it's handlers. What has Aetna and Anthem Blue Cross and Humana said about ACA? Are they for or against it? The ads I have seen are paid for by right wing political groups.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7192 posts, RR: 17
Reply 111, posted (9 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5221 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 110):

Quoting casinterest (Reply 107):
The GOP is so pro business,

Funny how the pro-business party is not listening to it's handlers. What has Aetna and Anthem Blue Cross and Humana said about ACA? Are they for or against it? The ads I have seen are paid for by right wing political groups.

I hope you all realize business = jobs?



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7054 posts, RR: 8
Reply 112, posted (9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5198 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 109):
The Tax rate is never the issue. the Actual relative taxes paid are insanely low.

Meaning what, too many loopholes, exemptions or politicians catering to their constituents and ensuring that the taxes paid are low?
The size of the debt, the size of the debt ceiling, the size of government was not generated by any one party in the last 5 years, so who exactly was running the show which created the current situation and where did they get off the ship?


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5177 posts, RR: 4
Reply 113, posted (9 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5156 times:

I'm going to go ahead and repost what I have just posted on FB in response to somebody who linked an article on my wall:

20 hours is a very long time in Washington, who knows what might happen in that time, but at this stage I'm not hopeful. As you say, way too much posturing.

In a perfect world of unicorns and rainbows what I want to see is at 23:55 Boehner tells the hardliners in his party where to go and passes the House Spending Resolution with the ACA component stripped out as a compromise with some Moderate GOP and Democrat votes. Unfortunately I don't think that he has the balls to do so. It would set up for some nasty recriminations in Caucus, and any GOP that votes for such a measure could face some real crazy primary challengers.

It's going to be a fascinating day tomorrow!!!



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7054 posts, RR: 8
Reply 114, posted (9 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5127 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 113):
Unfortunately I don't think that he has the balls to do so.

I also believe that too many people are giving Boehner credit and power that he does not have, the representatives did not agree to abandon their constituents when they entered the hallowed halls and do whatever the speaker in either chamber demands them to do, it what the adversarial democratic system is all about, a total lack of dictatorship.
The last big fight he withdrew compromise legislation worked out with the Democrats and the Administration because he knew it would never pass, in the same vein that the Speaker of the Senate declined to put forward GOP legislation.
In the posturing world, it means a great deal to have the speaker of a chamber put forward legislation that he knows will be voted down to make members and their respective parties look bad.

In my opinion its not whether he has the balls to put forward the bill for a vote, that's easy, if it fails it is just his pride taking the blow of poor leadership, if the members vote as per their constituents they will be back in the house next election. The issue is what happens in the interim while folks are going around saying see I told you so, the government will shut down, and the 17th October which is the debt ceiling deadline is the next on the horizon, so throw stones till that date and the next general eclection.

Wonder how many folks will abandon their government jobs for the private sector if the shutdown does occur, would they still take back pay in that event, will the government actually attempt to pay it, probably yes as it is simplier to pay versus try to verify whether it should be paid.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 115, posted (9 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5120 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 111):
I hope you all realize business = jobs?

Not anymore with off-shoring and automation.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently onlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 116, posted (9 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5116 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 112):

Meaning what, too many loopholes, exemptions or politicians catering to their constituents and ensuring that the taxes paid are low?

Yes

Quoting par13del (Reply 112):
The size of the debt, the size of the debt ceiling, the size of government was not generated by any one party in the last 5 years, so who exactly was running the show which created the current situation and where did they get off the ship?

Don't start with 5 years. The issue that happened over the last 5 years was built by policy. A lot of it was directly related to dealing with what happened in the Great Depression. The spending was on the books, and always is based on projected revenue, which is projected based on average revenue. Average Revenue always goes up. What happened over the last 5 years, is that spending could not go down, otherwise a massive depression would have occurred. Meanwhile revenue plummeted. All the investors and businesses were able to claim more losses. Not a lot claimed capital gains on taxes, and the unemployment caused drains on welfare, social security, and on tax revenues from businesses and individuals.

We are currently in a recovery that is surprisingly swift, and underneath it all the GOP (Not being the party in power) is very scared that they will lose more power should a strong recovery take hold. The Democratic party would have been in the same spot had they lost the house or senate on 2012.

The GOP though is attempting to do what no other congress has done. Hold off on a budget, and using political dynamite, but fiscal sparklers to do it. It is not a good end game for the GOP.

They are going to try to pressure the white hose to cave, but this time there are only two weeks until the debt ceiling gets hit, and by that point, the GOP will have new problems. Pissed of federal employees that aren't going to get paid over dumb things, and more importantly. Pissed off Business owners/Donors that don't want their bottom line affected by Social Engineering over contraception and medical devices.

We are going to the brink yet again, and we don't have to go to the brink. We already know that the US debt is gold compared to the rest of the world. and the economy is in recovery mode.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7192 posts, RR: 17
Reply 117, posted (9 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5100 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 115):
Not anymore with off-shoring and automation.

They said the same thing when the spinning wheel and the assembly lines were invented....you know what industries did? they adapted. They kept adapting. Why have we stopped adapting? If we as humans can't evolve, what are we, but just a bunch of useless watersacks?!

Stop complaining about both of those, and look at what causes those in the first place.....train your workers to beat automation....or rather, run automation.

And look at why it costs so damn much to manufacture in the USA.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7054 posts, RR: 8
Reply 118, posted (9 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5096 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 116):
Don't start with 5 years.

Quite agree, I mentioned 5 years because I did not want it to look as if this issue just started since Obama or the Democrats took over the White House.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 116):
The GOP though is attempting to do what no other congress has done. Hold off on a budget, and using political dynamite, but fiscal sparklers to do it. It is not a good end game for the GOP.

Except they have been passing budgets while the Senate has been missing in action for the last few years, they finally passed a budget what last year for the first time in 6 or seven years?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 116):
We are going to the brink yet again, and we don't have to go to the brink. We already know that the US debt is gold compared to the rest of the world. and the economy is in recovery mode.

If may be gold as of right now - which is what all previous administrations and legislators have been banking on - but a time is coming when the debt will have to be paid or paid down, one cannot continue to increase debt and think that there will be no consequences, nor can on think that dealing with it will have no consequences to everyone in the nation.

However, here's my solutions, pass the clean budget bill, and on the 17th October increase the debt ceiling for another year and start negotiating to do the whole thing again next year - mid terms next year?


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 119, posted (9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5045 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 102):
Again not to do with regulations. To do with an expansive monetary policy. Expanding the money supply makes bad loans look good, so i fail to see what regulations could have actually done.

You have to understand the importance of the price of money and the role this price plays in a stable economy.

Well yes, cheap and easy credit. No false 'boom' is complete without it.
There used to be regulations for that too.

Interestingly, the great monetarist experiment of 1979-82 soon gave way, with an election looming, to a reflation of the economy, many people I think still believe that this experiment last way longer.

To the main issue, I am struck by the language of the hard liners in the GOP, 'do what we want or the President shuts down the government'.
Remember those old school terrorists, not the suicide bombers but the hostage takers of 'take this plane to Cuba/Libya/Africa,' or those who held hostages to get prisoners released and a helicopter for their own escape?

'Meet our demands or you will be responsible for the loss of life when we start executing hostages'.


User currently onlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 120, posted (9 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5021 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 119):
There used to be regulations for that too

The government regulated itself?!


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 121, posted (9 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5005 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):
Why have we stopped adapting?

Because corporations find cheap labor off shore and found ways to replace humans so they don't have to pay their salaries. It's not that we workers have not adapted, it is that corporations have and given workers the middle finger.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8187 posts, RR: 8
Reply 122, posted (9 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4982 times:

Well, the Senate has just turned down the House Bill (big surprise) so it's no in the ands of the House Speaker - yet again.

No wonder we've had out credit rating cut in the past (and maybe again in the future). The GOP is so afraid of the Tea Party that there probably going to be a shut down tonight.

As was just said in a news conference: fail to pass and we end up with a Banana Republican House.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2986 posts, RR: 3
Reply 123, posted (9 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4967 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 122):
No wonder we've had out credit rating cut in the past (and maybe again in the future). The GOP is so afraid of the Tea Party that there probably going to be a shut down tonight.

The last time there was a threat of a shut down and we got the sequester cuts was the start of the economic recovery.

Exciting times a head I would say.

Okie


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7054 posts, RR: 8
Reply 124, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4935 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 122):
No wonder we've had out credit rating cut in the past (and maybe again in the future). The GOP is so afraid of the Tea Party that there probably going to be a shut down tonight.

Well in some quarters, they are only there because of the Tea Party, so are they being loyal??????

Quoting okie (Reply 123):
The last time there was a threat of a shut down and we got the sequester cuts was the start of the economic recovery.

Hmmmmmmm, makes you wonder, must be Tea Party supporters  


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2300 posts, RR: 13
Reply 125, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4938 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 11):
Absolutely, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Guadalcanal, Okinawa. Do we need to send in the Marines? Army and Navy?

Philippines and Bataan.   


And just a little time ago, my laptop has shut down without warning.  

--

Really, it's scary. I wonder what the Tea Party is up in the future.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently onlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 126, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4944 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 123):
The last time there was a threat of a shut down and we got the sequester cuts was the start of the economic recovery.

Exciting times a head I would say.

We've already been in a recovery. The GOP is threatening to end it or delay it on policy issues that have already been put into law, upheld by the Supreme Court, and an Election Cycle. The GOP is trying to legislate on items already decided.

But you are right about exciting times. The GOP will lose a lot of support as they try to legislate with hostage tactics on the ability to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling .



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5418 posts, RR: 8
Reply 127, posted (9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 4952 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 126):
raise the debt ceiling

We aren't even there yet. Just wait until we get to THAT discussion..... oh joy.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7054 posts, RR: 8
Reply 128, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4910 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 121):
Because corporations find cheap labor off shore and found ways to replace humans so they don't have to pay their salaries.

So the legislators who did away with regulations which made the GFC possible did not also contribute to companies waking up one day and saying hey, lets make all these products abroad and screw our local population out of jobs?
Somehow I think its more than just cheap labour, think the companies were actually trying to avoid high taxes?


Quoting casinterest (Reply 126):
The GOP will lose a lot of support as they try to legislate with hostage tactics on the ability to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling .

Which the Dems should be pulling for, next election they will control the House, Senate and the Administration and would be able to pass their budgets and raise the debt ceiling with no drama.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2986 posts, RR: 3
Reply 129, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4913 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 126):
But you are right about exciting times. The GOP will lose a lot of support as they try to legislate with hostage tactics on the ability to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling .

Unfortunately the total lack of accountability of the Senate not producing a budget for the last 5 years and relying on continuing resolutions to fund the government is backfiring on the Senate.
The 5th grade name calling and threats by the Democrats is making them look worse than ever when there have been hundreds of bills sent to the Senate but not put on the floor by Reid.
Standard DC practice as the old saying goes: If you are not responsible for anything then you can not be held accountable.

I expect sequester 2 but the Obamadrama will just play out.

Exciting times ahead.

Okie


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 130, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4913 times:

Congress want every one in US to go to bed and live coverage to stop. Sometime between 3AM-5AM EDT on October 1, House votes on clean one and go back home. No one will notice, at least they think.

User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8443 posts, RR: 1
Reply 131, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4861 times:

The Republicans know they are going to be blamed. R-CA Nunes according to HP made a nasty comparison about "lemmings" not to be repeated here. America on all ends can do batter than this for the whole world. The greatest country on Earth cannot have another shutdown, this is embarrassing.


"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 132, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4848 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 129):
Unfortunately the total lack of accountability of the Senate not producing a budget for the last 5 years and relying on continuing resolutions to fund the government is backfiring on the Senate.
The 5th grade name calling and threats by the Democrats is making them look worse than ever when there have been hundreds of bills sent to the Senate but not put on the floor by Reid.
Standard DC practice as the old saying goes: If you are not responsible for anything then you can not be held accountable.

Are we to take from your reply that the Senate alone is responsible for this mess? I guess it is because the Democrats have the majority. I guess a Republican controlled congress would solve all our problems. Imagine that. I cannot even think about such a disaster for the US, and the workers.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2986 posts, RR: 3
Reply 133, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 132):
Are we to take from your reply that the Senate alone is responsible for this mess

Legally the Senate is required to generate a budget by March/April of each year. They have not done so for the last 5 years.
They prefer to use continuing resolution to fund the government. Every time they run out of money then we are right back to where we are now. They just keep spending other peoples money until they run out and go for another debt limit increase without a budget. As long as they are not responsible then they will not have to be held accountable. Simple.
Just too easy to blame someone else for their incompetence. The drama going on now should have been addressed 6 months ago with the Senate generating a budget. Period.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 132):
I guess a Republican controlled congress would solve all our problems

If you think so.
The problem is holding the Senate accountable regardless of your effort to try to put a political spin on the lack of accountability. The House by law can not generate the initial budget only the Senate.

Okie


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 134, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4812 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 133):
Legally the Senate is required to generate a budget by March/April of each year. They have not done so for the last 5 years

Just about the time of the great recession it seems, do you think that may have something to do with the screwed up finances of this country? Do you think overspending from congress for many years does? Obama has been in 4/1/2 years. Hmmn! The ACA is what 3 years old? Hmmn! Who was that guy from Kentuck, who made that statement about not letting Obama get re-elected ? Hmmn! When that did not work ,he went to work blocking every thing Obama has tried to accomplish, Hmmn! All in all, not a very bi-partisan effort from the right. I will not even mention the House efforts to torpedo and block Obama.

[Edited 2013-09-30 19:36:39]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2300 posts, RR: 13
Reply 135, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4761 times:

It's 5:26 here in Switzerland and I watch in amazement.

I can't help but think of the duel at the end of "For a Few Dollars More".


I only recently learnt that Obamacare won't be affected much by the government shutdown. Oh the irony. The sad irony.

Quoting tugger (Reply 127):
We aren't even there yet. Just wait until we get to THAT discussion..... oh joy.

Oh yes. 

Why can't the Reps get their act together and stop fighting against Obamacare? The world won't end when every American will get affordable health insurance. It's just plain respect vis-a-vis the congress that voted for Obamacare, and even more the often-needed respect for democratic decisions. Here in Switzerland it is thought a very bad style if you try to throw a monkey wrench into something that has just recently been decided.



We'll see.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5177 posts, RR: 4
Reply 136, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4715 times:

So it's over...

I still stand by my comment in #113; had Boehner put the Senate plan (i.e. his without the ACA component) to a House vote then it would have passed. He didn't even have to make out that he supported the proposal to strip out the ACA provision, but simply washed his hands of it and let the Representatives decide.

Instead he maintained a principled stand, that was always doomed to fail, and inevitably achieved nothing



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 137, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4716 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 133):
Legally the Senate is required to generate a budget by March/April of each year. They have not done so for the last 5 years.

ALL spending bills MUST originate in the House. The Senate can propose a budget and the President can propose a budget, but it MUST come from the House FIRST and then go to the Senate and then the President. Read the Constitution.

I still want to know what the right proposes be replaced when they repeal ACA. If they want to get rid of ACA, fine, but show us what will replace it. Don't give us a "wait and see" answer.

Quoting par13del (Reply 128):
Somehow I think its more than just cheap labour, think the companies were actually trying to avoid high taxes?

They pass on the "high taxes" to the consumers by way of higher prices and accountants moving numbers around. And, some corporations get welfare on top of it.

Quoting okie (Reply 123):
we got the sequester cuts was the start of the economic recovery.

ummmm.... I thought the economic recovery started before the sequester. I guess we are rewriting history again so the right comes out on top. Big surprise.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePhilby From France, joined Aug 2013, 603 posts, RR: 1
Reply 138, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4678 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 131):
The greatest country on Earth cannot have another shutdown, this is embarrassing.

Now what was that line of Obama's? 'We live in the greatest nation in the history of the earth. Join with me as we try to change it' - presumably into the second greatest nation. Both sides certainly seem to be doing their best.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 139, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4599 times:

Quoting Philby (Reply 138):
'We live in the greatest nation in the history of the earth. Join with me as we try to change it' - presumably into the second greatest nation. Both sides certainly seem to be doing their best.

Helping heal everyone is a bad thing, I guess. The right says no to anything and everything a Democrat proposes. But, it is all Obama and the Democrats' fault. No one else but Obama and the Democrats are to blame.

Again: It takes two to tango but I am sick and tired of hearing "Obama and Democrats are the only ones to blame!" Really? Only two parties in Congress and only Obama and Democrats are to blame? Really?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePhilby From France, joined Aug 2013, 603 posts, RR: 1
Reply 140, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4547 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 139):
Helping heal everyone is a bad thing, I guess. The right says no to anything and everything a Democrat proposes. But, it is all Obama and the Democrats' fault. No one else but Obama and the Democrats are to blame.

I point out that I stated that BOTH sides seem to be playing the game. Obviously over here I'm more isolated from some of the finer details but they both look like a bunch of children out to play (as at times do European governments). Many people on this side of the Atlantic consider Obama the most sensible POTUS in memory but that doesn't necesarily extend to his party.

As for the right saying no to everything the left proposes, given the current batch of elected officials, would it really be that different if the places were swapped?

Personally, and as a european I'm all for affordable health care for all and think that Obama's work in this should be only the start of an evolution to that situation where US healthcare isn't on a par with Rwanda for many of it's citizens (run by charities).


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7054 posts, RR: 8
Reply 141, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4511 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 136):
to a House vote then it would have passed.

So you believe that one man - House Speaker - is responsible for all this???
Like you I wish he had sent it to a vote, my money was on it not passing with all Dems voting for and all Repubs against.
We will never know now will we.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 137):
ummmm.... I thought the economic recovery started before the sequester. I guess we are rewriting history again so the right comes out on top. Big surprise.

Quite agree, everything is revisionist.
The recovery was on the way and the sequester if it did occur would have killed the recovery and thrown the US back into recession. The Treasury and the Administration should be commended for ensuring that the effects of the sequester have not defeated the recovery, now they have to do the same to combat the effects of the shut down.
At least we are here to record history for ourselves, no need to read books after.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 142, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4472 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 135):
Why can't the Reps get their act together and stop fighting against Obamacare?

It doesn't work that way. They have to be loyal to their political contributors. Let's say in current scenario lobbyists from Medical Equipment Manufacturers gave political contributions for an amendment, congressmen have to try till last minute so lobbyists feel their money worth. Otherwise there won't be any future contributions.

Second all politics are local particularly on the House side, same person wins every time. National poll numbers have zero significance.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 143, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4422 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Is it naive to say that this sort of crisis should/could be resolved with a referendum? Is there much history of referenda in the US?


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7054 posts, RR: 8
Reply 144, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4386 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 139):
Again: It takes two to tango but I am sick and tired of hearing "Obama and Democrats are the only ones to blame!" Really? Only two parties in Congress and only Obama and Democrats are to blame? Really?

To be fair, the Democratic Party is the largest party and has been in control of the various Houses much longer than the Republicans, so the trillions of dollars of debt and the need to increase the debt ceiling falls more on their shoulders.
Now Republicans have been in control of the Executive Branch when a fair number of military conflicts have taken place, so they take the bulk of the blame there, however, the emergency spending that military conflicts take up are only a blip on the budget compared to the entitlement programs, so...........
Some levity to the situation. 

Hopefully they will allow the government to shut down for a few days to allow cooler heads to appear on Capitol Hill to combat the angry heads out in the nation, especially those who work for government or depend on their financing.

I must say, this is one of the reasons why I do not like big government - not big budget - as it means more people employed for government services which everyone seems to agree is in most cases not efficient but cannot do anything about, either lowering the staff level or improving the product, a proverbial rock and a hard place.


User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 145, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4369 times:

So the Federal government shut down, and I am watching a bit of CNN right now. The biggest thing they have to talk about right now is the closure of national parks.

OH THE CALAMITY!!!

Back to work. . . life doesn't shutdown when the government shuts down.

[Edited 2013-10-01 06:34:05]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7054 posts, RR: 8
Reply 146, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4347 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 145):
So the Federal government shut down, and I am watching a bit of CNN right now. The biggest thing they have to talk about right now is the closure of national parks.

Interesting to contrast this to Europe, for example in Greece when the public service unions call demonstrations / strikes etc. the Federal government in the USA is less involved in the local services which are primarily funded and employees employed at the state level.
Yes there will be an impact at the state and local level where Federal funds are used to supliment budgets, but schools, fire services, police, sanitation will take a few days even weeks before the effects are felt.

The Parks etc. are staffed with personnel hired directly by the Federal government, so unless emergency funds were / are in place, no TSA screeners so we can just walk onto a/c and bypass all the dreaded lines.


User currently onlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 147, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4334 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 144):
r, the emergency spending that military conflicts take up are only a blip on the budget compared to the entitlement programs, so...........

The entitlement programs which people pay into by the way. .... And never mind the massive Defense budget.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 145):
OH THE CALAMITY!!!

Back to work. . . life doesn't shutdown when the government shuts down.

It's good to see you don't care about the people whose jobs are being furloughed over ideological BS.


The Majority of the voters do not support the GOP politics. The GOP will take the blame on this shutdown, and lose even more power.

The GOP lost the presidency by 5 million votes. They lost the senate by 10 million votes, and they lost the total national vote of Reps by 1.7 million votes.

Expect the lead to lengthen in the next few elections



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7109 posts, RR: 3
Reply 148, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4334 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 145):
Back to work. . . life doesn't shutdown when the government shuts down.

What about the 700,000 people who were sent home without pay for as long as it takes to sort this out, those people have bills to pays and lives to lead and now unless they have enough savings to cover themselves they could be srewed by a bunch of overpaid children in Congress, I bet none of those wankers are going without pay until this issue is resolved.


User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 149, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4329 times:

All the talk about incalculable economic damage and the stock market will tank. . . stock markets are up.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 147):

Right, what about all the economic damage federal government policies cause? Those hurt people, too, and they hurt a heck of a lot more than this pathetic shut down.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinemad99 From Spain, joined Mar 2012, 527 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4311 times:

Didn't this happen about a year ago?

User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 151, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4319 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 145):
life doesn't shutdown when the government shuts down.

Actually that's exactly what does happen for hundreds of thousands of people. These people won't get paid, won't have any means of paying for their homes and feeding their families. You don't think that's a big deal? I don't think calamity is too strong a word at all.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently onlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 152, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4332 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 149):
Right, what about all the economic damage federal government policies cause? Those hurt people, too, and they hurt a heck of a lot more than this pathetic shut down.

We have a Federal Governement for a reason. To represent this country and make laws. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. However when the Government decides to shutdown over an issue that has been decided in 2 elections and a Supreme Court, that is epitome of stupid, and the blame does not go to both sides. It lands squarely on the GOP and Tea Party.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 153, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4289 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 152):
We have a Federal Governement for a reason. To represent this country and make laws. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. However when the Government decides to shutdown over an issue that has been decided in 2 elections and a Supreme Court, that is epitome of stupid, and the blame does not go to both sides. It lands squarely on the GOP and Tea Party.

Were it not for Obamacare the House would still be controlled by the Democrats, they knew Americans didn't want it (America was screaming at them) and they passed it anyway. As a result, people who would not have voted for it were sent to DC to stop it. By the way, why won't Harry Reid and the President negotiate? Have we abandoned the Republic in favor of a dictatorship now?

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 131):
The Republicans know they are going to be blamed. R-CA Nunes according to HP made a nasty comparison about "lemmings" not to be repeated here. America on all ends can do batter than this for the whole world. The greatest country on Earth cannot have another shutdown, this is embarrassing.

Was it embarrassing in September of 1976? What about the three times in 1977 (this one was unique in that it was Democrats against Democrats with a Democrat in the White House - surely that was embarrassing)? Maybe November of 1981 then? How about September and December of 1982? November of 1983? What about September and October of 1984? October of 1986? December of 1987? What about October of 1990?

Just trying to gauge what you find so embarrassing or if its only when the GOP puts its foot down.

[Edited 2013-10-01 07:42:33]

User currently onlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 154, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4248 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 153):
Were it not for Obamacare the House would still be controlled by the Democrats, they knew Americans didn't want it (America was screaming at them) and they passed it anyway. As a result, people who would not have voted for it were sent to DC to stop it. By the way, why won't Harry Reid and the President negotiate? Have we abandoned the Republic in favor of a dictatorship now?

if that were true, the senate already would have flipped and the Presidential election in 2012 would have gone the other way.

The only reason the GOP has the seats they presently do, is due to Gerrymandering, and at the end of the day, it is going to make the fall that much faster, as the echo chamber reinforces bad thinking.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1904 posts, RR: 2
Reply 155, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4232 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 152):
and the blame does not go to both sides.

Correct, the blame falls wholly on the party that simply will not negotiate or compromise. Basic logic. It's embarrassing how the Senate and President will not meet somewhere in the middle. It's like a spoiled child that throws a fit when they don't get 100% of what they want.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11208 posts, RR: 52
Reply 156, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4236 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 155):
Correct, the blame falls wholly on the party that simply will not negotiate or compromise. Basic logic.

Baloney. The blame falls on the party that took a perfectly fine budget and held it up because they didn't get their way.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 157, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4238 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 148):
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 151):


Don't be a drama queen. These people are not losing their cushy government jobs, they will be back in no time and they know it.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 152):
We have a Federal Governement for a reason. To represent this country and make laws. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. However when the Government decides to shutdown over an issue that has been decided in 2 elections and a Supreme Court, that is epitome of stupid, and the blame does not go to both sides. It lands squarely on the GOP and Tea Party.

It takes two to tango, buddy. Your President apparently is in "no mood" to negotiate and put an end to the so-called "misery" all the furloughed people you were talking about are going through. His pride and reputation are on the line, after all.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11526 posts, RR: 15
Reply 158, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4230 times:

Quoting Philby (Reply 140):
would it really be that different if the places were swapped?

Yes. Democrats have, historically, been willing to compromise.

Quoting par13del (Reply 144):
Democratic Party is the largest party and has been in control of the various Houses much longer than the Republicans, so the trillions of dollars of debt and the need to increase the debt ceiling falls more on their shoulders.

Again: Spending bills begin in the House where they must pass, then on to the Senate where they must pass and then to the White House where they must be signed into law. So, even if Democrats held a majority for more years in one chamber, they have to have the right spending to get both chambers to agree to it as well as the president signing it. So, all those spending bills under Nixon and Ford and Reagan and Bush I and Bush II had to be agree on by a majority. A bill does not just magically become law.

The same spending bill keeps leaving the House and the far right wing expects different results. Someone once said that is the definition of insanity.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 159, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4224 times:

[quote=PPVRA,reply=157]It takes two to tango, buddy. Your President apparently is in "no mood" to negotiate and put an end to the so-called "misery" all the furloughed people you were talking about are going through. His pride and reputation are on the line, after all.[/quoute]


Hmm, maybe it is because ACA is a law that has been passed, funded, and tested at the supreme court, and it has survived 42 defunding efforts by the GOP.

However the GOP would prefer to hold our government hostage over this item because they are ideologically opposed. They are not respecting the democratic and constitutional existence of it. they do not respect the will of the people. Only their gerrymandered view of it. And they are working to destroy this country at all costs.

Two can tango , but when your partner Is ideologically opposed to dancing, you don't get anything.